Who Needs an Architect?

Editor: Martin Fowler
T h o u g h t Wo r k s
[email protected]
Who Needs an Architect?
Martin Fowler
andering down our corridor a while
ago, I saw my colleague Dave Rice
in a particularly grumpy mood. My
brief question caused a violent
statement, “We shouldn’t interview
anyone who has ‘architect’ on his
resume.” At first blush, this was an odd turn of
phrase, because we usually introduce Dave as
one of our leading architects.
The reason for his title schizophrenia is the fact that, even by our
industry’s standards, “architect”
and “architecture” are terribly
overloaded words. For many, the
term “software architect” fits perfectly with the smug controlling image at the end of Matrix Reloaded.
Yet even in firms that have the
greatest contempt for that image,
there’s a vital role for the technical
leadership that an architect such as Dave plays.
What is architecture?
When I was fretting over the title for Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture
(Addison-Wesley, 2002), everyone who reviewed it agreed that “architecture” belonged
in the title. Yet we all felt uncomfortable defining the word. Because it was my book, I felt
compelled to take a stab at defining it.
My first move was to avoid fuzziness by
just letting my cynicism hang right out. In a
sense, I define architecture as a word we use
when we want to talk about design but want
to puff it up to make it sound important. (Yes,
you can imagine a similar phenomenon for ar2
Published by the IEEE Computer Society
chitect.) However, as so often occurs, inside
the blighted cynicism is a pinch of truth. Understanding came to me after reading a posting
from Ralph Johnson on the Extreme Programming mailing list. It’s so good I’ll quote it all.
A previous posting said
The RUP, working off the IEEE definition, defines
architecture as “the highest level concept of a system in its environment. The architecture of a software system (at a given point in time) is its organization or structure of significant components
interacting through interfaces, those components
being composed of successively smaller components and interfaces.”
Johnson responded:
I was a reviewer on the IEEE standard that used
that, and I argued uselessly that this was clearly
a completely bogus definition. There is no highest level concept of a system. Customers have a
different concept than developers. Customers do
not care at all about the structure of significant
components. So, perhaps an architecture is the
highest level concept that developers have of a
system in its environment. Let’s forget the developers who just understand their little piece. Architecture is the highest level concept of the expert developers. What makes a component
significant? It is significant because the expert
developers say so.
So, a better definition would be “In most successful
software projects, the expert developers working
on that project have a shared understanding of the
0740-7459/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
system design. This shared understanding
is called ‘architecture.’ This understanding
includes how the system is divided into
components and how the components interact through interfaces. These components are usually composed of smaller
components, but the architecture only includes the components and interfaces that
are understood by all the developers.”
This would be a better definition because
it makes clear that architecture is a social construct (well, software is too, but
architecture is even more so) because it
doesn’t just depend on the software, but
on what part of the software is considered important by group consensus.
There is another style of definition of architecture which is something like “architecture is the set of design decisions that
must be made early in a project.” I complain about that one, too, saying that architecture is the decisions that you wish
you could get right early in a project, but
that you are not necessarily more likely to
get them right than any other.
Anyway, by this second definition, programming language would be part of
the architecture for most projects. By the
first, it wouldn’t be.
Whether something is part of the architecture is entirely based on whether the developers think it is important. People who
build “enterprise applications” tend to
think that persistence is crucial. When they
start to draw their architecture, they start
with three layers. They will mention “and
we use Oracle for our database and have
our own persistence layer to map objects
onto it.” But a medical imaging application might include Oracle without it being
considered part of the architecture. That is
because most of the complication is in analyzing the images, not in storing them.
Fetching and storing images is done by
one little part of the application and most
of the developers ignore it.
So, this makes it hard to tell people how
to describe their architecture. “Tell us
what is important.” Architecture is about
the important stuff. Whatever that is.
The architect’s role
So if architecture is the important
stuff, then the architect is the person (or
people) who worries about the important stuff. And here we get to the
essence of the difference between the
Matrix Reloaded species of architect
and the style that Dave Rice exemplifies.
Architectus Reloadus is the person
who makes all the important decisions.
The architect does this because a single
mind is needed to ensure a system’s conceptual integrity, and perhaps because
the architect doesn’t think that the team
members are sufficiently skilled to make
those decisions. Often, such decisions
must be made early on so that everyone
else has a plan to follow.
Architectus Oryzus is a different
kind of animal (if you can’t guess, try
This kind of architect must be very
aware of what’s going on in the project,
looking out for important issues and
tackling them before they become a serious problem. When I see an architect
like this, the most noticeable part of the
work is the intense collaboration. In the
morning, the architect programs with a
developer, trying to harvest some common locking code. In the afternoon, the
architect participates in a requirements
session, helping explain to the requirements people the technical consequences of some of their ideas in nontechnical terms—such as development
In many ways, the most important
activity of Architectus Oryzus is to
mentor the development team, to raise
What makes a
component significant?
It is significant
because the
expert developers
say so.
their level so that they can take on
more complex issues. Improving the
development team’s ability gives an architect much greater leverage than being the sole decision maker and thus
running the risk of being an architectural bottleneck. This leads to the satisfying rule of thumb that an architect’s
value is inversely proportional to the
number of decisions he or she makes.
At a recent ThoughtWorks retreat,
some colleagues and I were talking
about the issue of architects. I found it
interesting that we quickly agreed on the
nature of the job, following Architectus
Oryzus, but we could not easily find a
name. Architectus Reloadus is too common for us to be comfortable with “architect,” and it’s based on a flawed
metaphor (see http://martinfowler.com/
bliki/BuildingArchitect.html). Mike Two
came up with the best name I’ve heard
so far: guide, as in mountaineering. A
guide is a more experienced and skillful
team member who teaches other team
members to better fend for themselves
yet is always there for the really tricky
Getting rid of software
I love writing a startling heading, and
the best, like this one, have an important meaning that’s not immediately obvious. Remember Johnson’s secondary
definition: “Architecture is the decisions
that you wish you could get right early
in a project.” Why do people feel the
need to get some things right early in the
project? The answer, of course, is because they perceive those things as hard
to change. So you might end up defining
architecture as “things that people perceive as hard to change.”
It’s commonly believed that if you
are building an enterprise application,
you must get the database schema right
early on because it’s hard to change the
database schema—particularly once
you have gone live. On one of our projects, the database administrator,
Pramod Sadalage, devised a system
that let us change the database schema
(and migrate the data) easily (see http://
July/August 2003
By doing this, he made it so that the
database schema was no longer architectural. I see this as an entirely good
thing because it let us better handle
At a fascinating talk at the XP 2002
conference (http://martinfowler.com/
articles/xp2002.html), Enrico Zaninotto, an economist, analyzed the underlying thinking behind agile ideas in
manufacturing and software development. One aspect I found particularly
interesting was his comment that irreversibility was one of the prime drivers
of complexity. He saw agile methods, in
manufacturing and software development, as a shift that seeks to contain
complexity by reducing irreversibility—
as opposed to tackling other complexity drivers. I think that one of an architect’s most important tasks is to remove
architecture by finding ways to eliminate irreversibility in software designs.
Here’s Johnson again, this time in
response to an email message I sent
h t t p : / / c o m p u t e r. o r g / s o f t w a r e
One of the differences between building
architecture and software architecture is
that a lot of decisions about a building
are hard to change. It is hard to go back
and change your basement, though it is
There is no theoretical reason that anything is hard to change about software.
If you pick any one aspect of software
then you can make it easy to change,
but we don’t know how to make everything easy to change. Making something
easy to change makes the overall system
a little more complex, and making
everything easy to change makes the entire system very complex. Complexity is
what makes software hard to change.
That, and duplication.
My reservation of Aspect-Oriented Programming is that we already have fairly
good techniques for separating aspects
of programs, and we don’t use them. I
don’t think the real problem will be
solved by making better techniques for
separating aspects. We don’t know what
should be the aspects that need separating, and we don’t know when it is worth
separating them and when it is not.
Software is not limited by physics, like
buildings are. It is limited by imagination, by design, by organization. In
short, it is limited by properties of people, not by properties of the world. “We
have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Martin Fowler is the chief scientist for ThoughtWorks, and Internet systems delivery and consulting company. Contact him at
[email protected]